Re: June Change Proposal: Personalization

If, as it sounds, this is actually an editorial question of whether the "No Personalization" subsection of "General Principles for Permitted Uses" is redundant or clarifying, I won't create a separate issue.

I'm not aware of any arguments that DNT should prohibit personalization, for example, without data collection / from de-identified data, which would be a large change from current text and group agreements that I think you're not arguing for.

Thanks,
Nick

On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Justin Brookman wrote:
>> This change is unnecessary.  The standard already states that deidentified data is out of scope.
> On re-read, it looks like the No Personalization section might only apply to permitted use data.  In which case maybe it's redundant with the No Secondary Uses section?
>> This language (or at least concept) has long been stable in the document
> I don't believe we ever reached consensus on whether DNT allows privacy-preserving personalization.
>> , and we shouldn't be challenging every uncontroversial wording decision at the 11th hour.
>> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>> To: public-tracking@w3.org Group WG [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org]
>> Sent: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:57:02 -0500
>> Subject: June Change Proposal: Personalization
>> 
>> I would propose dropping section 5.1.3 ("No Personalization").  I would be comfortable allowing third parties to personalize a user's web experience… so long as it is done in a privacy-preserving way, with rigorously de-identified data.
>> 
>